Conspiracy - Election 2005
Discussion
*stands well back*
------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2005: CONSPIRACY OF THE IDIOTS
'We wouldn't need so many immigrant teachers, nurses, dentists, doctors etc. if we hadn't let so many immigrant patients in, in the first place!'
- contributor to BBC Talking Points
Yeah, whatever. If there's one thing more infuriating than politicians weaseling their way out of their self-created problems, it's the deafening roar of the idiots. The great thing about being an idiot is that you don't have to justify the views you hold in any reasoned way... 'If UFOs don't exist, then how do
aliens travel around? On motorbikes? Don't make me laugh. Their legs would be too short to reach the ground.'
(Comments like these are customarily followed by the idiot sitting back in their chair smugly, as though they've just checkmated Gary Kasparov.)
Unfortunately, the current election, perhaps even more than previous ones, seems to be conducted on an idiot level. It's almost as though the main parties are in cahoots with those members of the public who vote for the vaguest, least-considered of reasons.
BBC news recently took a trip to Rochdale, with depressing results. Rather a lot of the people vox popped immediately came up with 'immigration' as one of the main issues that concerned them.
We're not suggesting Rochdale is any more or less racist than anywhere else, but why is immigration such an issue? For many years Rochdale has had an established Asian population: about eight per cent of the total population is Asian, mainly Pakistani, according to Rochdale council.
Although there have been what can loosely described as 'race riots' in nearby Oldham and Burnley, there hasn't been anything like this in Rochdale itself. (Even the Oldham riots didn't seem to be much more than very local incidents caused in part by BNP
agitation, rumours and macho stupidity on the part of Asian teenagers.)
So it's hard to see how the residents of Rochdale can get too worked up about the Asian population at a local level, and even harder to see why people in places with a smaller or non-existent ethnic population are also warming to the issue. Unless they're so bigoted they think that if they pop into a corner shop run by dark-skinned people, they're going to end up in a big cooking pot. So what is going on here?
A clue lies in the fact that earlier this month Michael '
ing' Howard suggested that there would be more race riots if people lost confidence in the UK's immigration system. This is a pretty weird interpretation, by any standards. Some northern towns have shown a reasonable level of support for the BNP, although it doesn't seem to be particularly reliable or consistent. This is quite different to actual race war on the streets.
But politicians, Howard most of all, have pushed immigration as automatically being a problem, or at least enough of a problem to warrant making it one of the main election issues. (We realise that immigration isn't directly related to the riots oop North, but immigration as an issue does feed into race antagonism.) But is immigration really so important?
At some level, immigration is a genuine issue. It throws up all sorts of questions about whether an economy needs immigrants or whether after a certain point the net effect is a drain on a nation's resources, and if so, how much. There are dozens of
other immigration-related questions: whether immigrants integrate or not, and whether it matters if they do or don't; what large-scale immigration means for jobs and wealth creation, etc.
What tends to hobble the debate is that proper evidence about immigration is thin on the ground.
The lack of information about true levels of immigration is well (un)documented. Jeremy Paxman grilled Tony Blair this week, or rather seared, spatchcocked and roasted him on a high heat, forcing him to admit he didn't know how many failed asylum
seekers are still in the UK. Blair wouldn't even give an estimate, which is a pretty lame response from a prime minister who claims that immigration is such a serious problem.
But if the numbers aren't there, an underlying theory about immigration doesn't seem to exist either. If you've got the time and inclination, some interesting stuff can be found at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/issues/4352
373.stm (An overview)
www.population-growth-migration.info/essays/Dr2Pro-
immigration.html (A detailed trawl through a variety of research)
www.praxis.org.uk/answers.aspx (An informative little quiz about the reality of immigration.)
It's stupid to look for a cut-and-dried view of immigration in the UK (especially on the Internet). But the more you look into the 'problem' of immigration, the less it looks like a real problem.
If there are three questions it would be nice to know the answer to, they would be:
- What, roughly, is the true level of immigration in the UK?
- Is it beneficial, or a (serious) drain on our resources?
- Given that there's little evidence that the UK is being impoverished by immigration, or that ethnic tensions are anything more than the work of racists and hotheads, is immigration an issue at all?
The answer to the last question is probably 'no'. And although we don't have answers to any of the questions, Labour and the Tories seem happy to conduct vague, idiot-friendly campaigns based on the common perception that immigration is a serious problem. In
other words: campaigns run by self-serving idiots for other idiots.
Reply to duh@thefridaything.co.uk - not me.
------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2005: CONSPIRACY OF THE IDIOTS
'We wouldn't need so many immigrant teachers, nurses, dentists, doctors etc. if we hadn't let so many immigrant patients in, in the first place!'
- contributor to BBC Talking Points
Yeah, whatever. If there's one thing more infuriating than politicians weaseling their way out of their self-created problems, it's the deafening roar of the idiots. The great thing about being an idiot is that you don't have to justify the views you hold in any reasoned way... 'If UFOs don't exist, then how do
aliens travel around? On motorbikes? Don't make me laugh. Their legs would be too short to reach the ground.'
(Comments like these are customarily followed by the idiot sitting back in their chair smugly, as though they've just checkmated Gary Kasparov.)
Unfortunately, the current election, perhaps even more than previous ones, seems to be conducted on an idiot level. It's almost as though the main parties are in cahoots with those members of the public who vote for the vaguest, least-considered of reasons.
BBC news recently took a trip to Rochdale, with depressing results. Rather a lot of the people vox popped immediately came up with 'immigration' as one of the main issues that concerned them.
We're not suggesting Rochdale is any more or less racist than anywhere else, but why is immigration such an issue? For many years Rochdale has had an established Asian population: about eight per cent of the total population is Asian, mainly Pakistani, according to Rochdale council.
Although there have been what can loosely described as 'race riots' in nearby Oldham and Burnley, there hasn't been anything like this in Rochdale itself. (Even the Oldham riots didn't seem to be much more than very local incidents caused in part by BNP
agitation, rumours and macho stupidity on the part of Asian teenagers.)
So it's hard to see how the residents of Rochdale can get too worked up about the Asian population at a local level, and even harder to see why people in places with a smaller or non-existent ethnic population are also warming to the issue. Unless they're so bigoted they think that if they pop into a corner shop run by dark-skinned people, they're going to end up in a big cooking pot. So what is going on here?
A clue lies in the fact that earlier this month Michael '
ing' Howard suggested that there would be more race riots if people lost confidence in the UK's immigration system. This is a pretty weird interpretation, by any standards. Some northern towns have shown a reasonable level of support for the BNP, although it doesn't seem to be particularly reliable or consistent. This is quite different to actual race war on the streets. But politicians, Howard most of all, have pushed immigration as automatically being a problem, or at least enough of a problem to warrant making it one of the main election issues. (We realise that immigration isn't directly related to the riots oop North, but immigration as an issue does feed into race antagonism.) But is immigration really so important?
At some level, immigration is a genuine issue. It throws up all sorts of questions about whether an economy needs immigrants or whether after a certain point the net effect is a drain on a nation's resources, and if so, how much. There are dozens of
other immigration-related questions: whether immigrants integrate or not, and whether it matters if they do or don't; what large-scale immigration means for jobs and wealth creation, etc.
What tends to hobble the debate is that proper evidence about immigration is thin on the ground.
The lack of information about true levels of immigration is well (un)documented. Jeremy Paxman grilled Tony Blair this week, or rather seared, spatchcocked and roasted him on a high heat, forcing him to admit he didn't know how many failed asylum
seekers are still in the UK. Blair wouldn't even give an estimate, which is a pretty lame response from a prime minister who claims that immigration is such a serious problem.
But if the numbers aren't there, an underlying theory about immigration doesn't seem to exist either. If you've got the time and inclination, some interesting stuff can be found at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/issues/4352
373.stm (An overview)
www.population-growth-migration.info/essays/Dr2Pro-
immigration.html (A detailed trawl through a variety of research)
www.praxis.org.uk/answers.aspx (An informative little quiz about the reality of immigration.)
It's stupid to look for a cut-and-dried view of immigration in the UK (especially on the Internet). But the more you look into the 'problem' of immigration, the less it looks like a real problem.
If there are three questions it would be nice to know the answer to, they would be:
- What, roughly, is the true level of immigration in the UK?
- Is it beneficial, or a (serious) drain on our resources?
- Given that there's little evidence that the UK is being impoverished by immigration, or that ethnic tensions are anything more than the work of racists and hotheads, is immigration an issue at all?
The answer to the last question is probably 'no'. And although we don't have answers to any of the questions, Labour and the Tories seem happy to conduct vague, idiot-friendly campaigns based on the common perception that immigration is a serious problem. In
other words: campaigns run by self-serving idiots for other idiots.
Reply to duh@thefridaything.co.uk - not me.
[quote=birdbrain
At some level, immigration is a genuine issue. It throws up all sorts of questions about whether an economy needs immigrants or whether after a certain point the net effect is a drain on a nation's resources, and if so, how much. There are dozens of
other immigration-related questions: whether immigrants integrate or not, and whether it matters if they do or don't; what large-scale immigration means for jobs and wealth creation, etc.
What tends to hobble the debate is that proper evidence about immigration is thin on the ground.
The lack of information about true levels of immigration is well (un)documented. Jeremy Paxman grilled Tony Blair this week, or rather seared, spatchcocked and roasted him on a high heat, forcing him to admit he didn't know how many failed asylum
seekers are still in the UK. Blair wouldn't even give an estimate, which is a pretty lame response from a prime minister who claims that immigration is such a serious problem.
But if the numbers aren't there, an underlying theory about immigration doesn't seem to exist either.
[/quote]
Somewhat ironic isn't it, Micheal Howard raises immigration as an election issue, quite rightly as the current system is a shambles, then he is accused of racism. Then the same people say why cant we have a proper debate about immigration?. What is a proper debate in their view, is it one where the Guardian/BBC set sit around talking about how wonderful immigration is.
At some level, immigration is a genuine issue. It throws up all sorts of questions about whether an economy needs immigrants or whether after a certain point the net effect is a drain on a nation's resources, and if so, how much. There are dozens of
other immigration-related questions: whether immigrants integrate or not, and whether it matters if they do or don't; what large-scale immigration means for jobs and wealth creation, etc.
What tends to hobble the debate is that proper evidence about immigration is thin on the ground.
The lack of information about true levels of immigration is well (un)documented. Jeremy Paxman grilled Tony Blair this week, or rather seared, spatchcocked and roasted him on a high heat, forcing him to admit he didn't know how many failed asylum
seekers are still in the UK. Blair wouldn't even give an estimate, which is a pretty lame response from a prime minister who claims that immigration is such a serious problem.
But if the numbers aren't there, an underlying theory about immigration doesn't seem to exist either.
[/quote]
Somewhat ironic isn't it, Micheal Howard raises immigration as an election issue, quite rightly as the current system is a shambles, then he is accused of racism. Then the same people say why cant we have a proper debate about immigration?. What is a proper debate in their view, is it one where the Guardian/BBC set sit around talking about how wonderful immigration is.
Isn't it something like a city the size of Peterborough every year, or Birmingham every five, net immigration?
Now, we currently have a relative national trunk/motorway network a half/third/quarter the size of our competitiors.
So, we need to double/triple/ quadruple the network now, probably build another Birmingham now, and start another two or three Birminghams to get them ready in 5/10/15 years time.
And double/triple/quadruple our road system to match.
Strange thing is, the kind of people who want us to let all and sundry in, also complain that if we built another inch of road: the whole of the country would be tarmac/concreted over and we'd all die of CO2 poisoning.
So that's checkmate, Gary.
Now, we currently have a relative national trunk/motorway network a half/third/quarter the size of our competitiors.
So, we need to double/triple/ quadruple the network now, probably build another Birmingham now, and start another two or three Birminghams to get them ready in 5/10/15 years time.
And double/triple/quadruple our road system to match.
Strange thing is, the kind of people who want us to let all and sundry in, also complain that if we built another inch of road: the whole of the country would be tarmac/concreted over and we'd all die of CO2 poisoning.
So that's checkmate, Gary.
We don't do anything to deport failed asylum seekers.
We don't do enough to hold those entering the country as illegals.
As for a figure? Well 500,000 illegals suggested by the study comissioned by the home office who then decided not to publish the figure and gagged the contributing professor would be a start.
Edited to add,
Reason asylum aplications have gone down is they DON'T BOTHER APPLYING ANYMORE. The fact that the authorities are "cracking down" (yeah whatever) has spread and people don't play that route anymore.
Govt is happy to play statistics because thats how the govt makes its case. Stats are more important than reality even if its a complete farce.
>> Edited by funkihamsta on Wednesday 27th April 01:01
We don't do enough to hold those entering the country as illegals.
As for a figure? Well 500,000 illegals suggested by the study comissioned by the home office who then decided not to publish the figure and gagged the contributing professor would be a start.
Edited to add,
Reason asylum aplications have gone down is they DON'T BOTHER APPLYING ANYMORE. The fact that the authorities are "cracking down" (yeah whatever) has spread and people don't play that route anymore.
Govt is happy to play statistics because thats how the govt makes its case. Stats are more important than reality even if its a complete farce.
>> Edited by funkihamsta on Wednesday 27th April 01:01
It's clear, that as you look around the world at the moment, the same issues are being talked of everywhere. Immigration, Tax, Pensions, Employment etc. So we're NOT unique.
It's a sign I think that the world is changing and "globalisation" is the cause. We, like the "Luddites" of old, ain't gonna' stop it.
Large companies now threaten to leave if the encumbent "government" does not comply with their wishes and are driving standards, wages, rights etc, down. First rule: know thine enemy.
The history books will one day mark this time just as greatly as that of the Industrial Revolution of the last century. The movement of people and industry around the world means that we HAVE to change.
It's no good blaming: this or that Government, for they are passengers, just like we are. All they can do is try and limit the damage on the advice of their advisors.
D fender, I believe you are right. The first thing that Germany did when they took over the East was spend on improving the infrastructure, like: roads, Railways, Electricity / Gas /water supplies..................for they knew that without it they were lost. It cost them a fortune (and still is for the moment). The rest of Europe responded in the same way.
At the same time WE, neglected our roads, demolished our rail network, failed to invest because we wanted to pay less tax and didn't want to to fund it. We need more roads, railways, and power. (sod the greens) The "market" is NOT going to provide, they are interested only in more short term profit in a "captive" market!
This is why JL, I believe in the mixed economy of old, but it HAS to be properly funded and planned. I feel however, we're now,...... too late.
I believe that we will pay heavily for our short termism in the future. We are an offshore island of Europe and we need to realise that. And as such are "up against" it before we start.
Isn't there a PH'er on here with the name: "Lord Helpus"? I think we're going to need him.
It's a sign I think that the world is changing and "globalisation" is the cause. We, like the "Luddites" of old, ain't gonna' stop it.
Large companies now threaten to leave if the encumbent "government" does not comply with their wishes and are driving standards, wages, rights etc, down. First rule: know thine enemy.
The history books will one day mark this time just as greatly as that of the Industrial Revolution of the last century. The movement of people and industry around the world means that we HAVE to change.
It's no good blaming: this or that Government, for they are passengers, just like we are. All they can do is try and limit the damage on the advice of their advisors.
D fender, I believe you are right. The first thing that Germany did when they took over the East was spend on improving the infrastructure, like: roads, Railways, Electricity / Gas /water supplies..................for they knew that without it they were lost. It cost them a fortune (and still is for the moment). The rest of Europe responded in the same way.
At the same time WE, neglected our roads, demolished our rail network, failed to invest because we wanted to pay less tax and didn't want to to fund it. We need more roads, railways, and power. (sod the greens) The "market" is NOT going to provide, they are interested only in more short term profit in a "captive" market!
This is why JL, I believe in the mixed economy of old, but it HAS to be properly funded and planned. I feel however, we're now,...... too late.
I believe that we will pay heavily for our short termism in the future. We are an offshore island of Europe and we need to realise that. And as such are "up against" it before we start.
Isn't there a PH'er on here with the name: "Lord Helpus"? I think we're going to need him.
It's clear, that as you look around the world at the moment, the same issues are being talked of everywhere. Immigration, Tax, Pensions, Employment etc. So we're NOT unique.
It's a sign I think that the world is changing and "globalisation" is the cause. We, like the "Luddites" of old, ain't gonna' stop it.
Large International companies now threaten to leave, if the encumbent "government" does not comply with their wishes and are driving; standards, wages, rights etc, down. First rule: ........know thine enemy.
The history books will one day mark this time just as greatly as that of the Industrial Revolution of the last century. The movement of people and industry around the world means that we HAVE to change.
It's no good blaming: this or that Government, for they are passengers, just like we are. All they can do is try and limit the damage on the advice of their advisors as they see it.
D fender, I believe you are right. The first thing that the German Government did when they took over the East was spend on improving the infrastructure, like: roads, Railways, Electricity / Gas /water supplies..................for they knew that without it they were lost. It cost them a fortune (and still is for the moment). The rest of Europe responded in the same way. ..............This gives them at least, a chance.
At the same time WE, ............ neglected our roads, demolished our rail network, failed to invest because we wanted to pay less tax and didn't want to to fund it. We need more roads, railways, and power. (sod the greens) The "market" is NOT going to provide, they are interested only in more short term profit in a "captive" market. Only government can plan long term.
This is why JL, I believe in the mixed economy of old, but it HAS to be properly funded and planned. I feel however, we're now,...... too late.
I believe that we will pay heavily for our short termism in the future. We are an offshore island of Europe and we need to realise that. And as such are "up against" it before we start.
Isn't there a PH'er on here with the name: "Lord Helpus"? I think we're going to need him.
>> Edited by 8Pack on Wednesday 27th April 04:11
It's a sign I think that the world is changing and "globalisation" is the cause. We, like the "Luddites" of old, ain't gonna' stop it.
Large International companies now threaten to leave, if the encumbent "government" does not comply with their wishes and are driving; standards, wages, rights etc, down. First rule: ........know thine enemy.
The history books will one day mark this time just as greatly as that of the Industrial Revolution of the last century. The movement of people and industry around the world means that we HAVE to change.
It's no good blaming: this or that Government, for they are passengers, just like we are. All they can do is try and limit the damage on the advice of their advisors as they see it.
D fender, I believe you are right. The first thing that the German Government did when they took over the East was spend on improving the infrastructure, like: roads, Railways, Electricity / Gas /water supplies..................for they knew that without it they were lost. It cost them a fortune (and still is for the moment). The rest of Europe responded in the same way. ..............This gives them at least, a chance.
At the same time WE, ............ neglected our roads, demolished our rail network, failed to invest because we wanted to pay less tax and didn't want to to fund it. We need more roads, railways, and power. (sod the greens) The "market" is NOT going to provide, they are interested only in more short term profit in a "captive" market. Only government can plan long term.
This is why JL, I believe in the mixed economy of old, but it HAS to be properly funded and planned. I feel however, we're now,...... too late.
I believe that we will pay heavily for our short termism in the future. We are an offshore island of Europe and we need to realise that. And as such are "up against" it before we start.
Isn't there a PH'er on here with the name: "Lord Helpus"? I think we're going to need him.
>> Edited by 8Pack on Wednesday 27th April 04:11
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff